Why Fed is GOAT-It's in the courts

After researching this a bit I am shocked there isn't more talk about it.

Fed plays best on faster surfaces. However, in order to get longer rallies that supposedly please the crowd, they have slowed down hard courts, grass courts, then of course we have clay.

To draw an analogy from Boxing, if they changed the ring size from 20X20 to 10X10, you'd never had heard of Ali.

Likewish, if Fed played on the faster surfaces, does anyone doubt he'd have a handful more GS's? Nadal is near unbeatable on clay, but for a reason. It's like putting Foreman in a 10X10 ring, he'd be unbeatable under those circumstances. I don't see how anyone can deny this.

Fed started as a Serve & Vollyer, finishing points off quick. Then as the courts slowed and slowed he adapted to all court, now he is almost totally a baseliner. I agree there should be diverse courts, but to SLOW THEM ALL DOWN? That just is not right.

Would Nadal have beat Fed at Wimbledon on fast grass? This is a big deal, and it needs to re-evaluate GOAT, and also the big three baseliners abilities.

Borg was a great baseliner, but he did it on faster surfaces, if courts were slower like today you could say he'd probably win more GS's.

Has Fed declined, or is it that the courts have progressively gotten slower, is it a cooincidence that as courts became slower and slower Feds loses increased?

Has Fed declined, or is it that the courts have progressively gotten slower, is it a cooincidence that as courts became slower and slower Feds loses increased?

Click to expand...

I think it is a combination of the two. He would likely still be picking up slams right now with faster conditions, but I don't think he would be winning three of four. Two in a decent year instead of one.

After researching this a bit I am shocked there isn't more talk about it.

Fed plays best on faster surfaces. However, in order to get longer rallies that supposedly please the crowd, they have slowed down hard courts, grass courts, then of course we have clay.

To draw an analogy from Boxing, if they changed the ring size from 20X20 to 10X10, you'd never had heard of Ali.

Likewish, if Fed played on the faster surfaces, does anyone doubt he'd have a handful more GS's? Nadal is near unbeatable on clay, but for a reason. It's like putting Foreman in a 10X10 ring, he'd be unbeatable under those circumstances. I don't see how anyone can deny this.

Fed started as a Serve & Vollyer, finishing points off quick. Then as the courts slowed and slowed he adapted to all court, now he is almost totally a baseliner. I agree there should be diverse courts, but to SLOW THEM ALL DOWN? That just is not right.

Would Nadal have beat Fed at Wimbledon on fast grass? This is a big deal, and it needs to re-evaluate GOAT, and also the big three baseliners abilities.

Borg was a great baseliner, but he did it on faster surfaces, if courts were slower like today you could say he'd probably win more GS's.

Has Fed declined, or is it that the courts have progressively gotten slower, is it a cooincidence that as courts became slower and slower Feds loses increased?

Click to expand...

Such a dumb statement, we saw Fed on fast grass in Halle, against fresh newcomer Haas.

Can someone tell me, if Roger and many tennis fans don't like slow surface, then why did they slowed down all surfaces?

Click to expand...

Watch the 1994 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Ivanisevic. It was a servefest for 2 sets, followed by a tanking by Goran in the third set as he ate a bagel. I had high hopes for a Goran victory after his brilliant semi final win over Becker, yet the final was a complete dud, showing the most dull side of 1990s grass-court tennis. The clay-court scene was full of epic rallies at the time, yet grass was getting more and more dominated by 1-3 shot rallies throughout an increasing number of matches. Now, grass-court tennis back then could be entertaining if there was many volleys and net play, but even that was being made more and more harder to do in the 1990s. At Wimbledon back then, I remember being in awe of serving, especially Goran's first serves, Sampras' clutch second serves, and Krajicek's draw dropping displays of serving precision in 1996. I even remember John Lloyd calling for grass-courts to be abolished for good due to the increasing dominance of powerful serves.

Clay-court tennis was about epic rallies, and getting engrossed in the battle. I found this to be by far the most entertaining section of the tennis tour, and it would go on for most of the year being shown on those old ATP highlights shows.

All the more reason why it's laughable when people try and compare Laver and Fed, when Laver won 3 of his 4 that year on grass, as if Fed couldn't have done this many times over, much less once.

Click to expand...

The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different. Brisbane was high bouncing for a grass-court due to the Queensland heat, Wimbledon was low bouncing but at least it bounced okay, whereas Forest Hills was a bog of a court that barely bounced at all.

Has Fed declined, or is it that the courts have progressively gotten slower, is it a cooincidence that as courts became slower and slower Feds loses increased?

Click to expand...

I think you have to be careful not to get carried away with this. Court speed is a hot topic right now because a journalist asked Fed about it at the WTF. But the majority of the tournaments slowed down their courts quite a few years ago. There were a few, like Paris indoors, that kept a fast court as everyone else slowed down, and one or two others - Cincy - that have kept their courts fast, but most of the courts slowed down a long time ago. So to say that Fed's decline was caused by the slowing of the courts is inaccurate. Now, if half of those courts that got slowed down got sped up again, Fed's decline might not be a decline at all, but like Murray said in Dubai, he might actually rise to the top again.

I'd bet that some tournament directors are starting to think about that.

Thanks Mustard btw grass is still very fast, Tsonga for example played 2 cons SF in Wimbledon

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree it's still fast, but it clearly has firmer and higher bounces now than before. In September 2001, Wimbledon changed its grass-court surfaces from 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue, to 100% Rye. 2002 saw the slowest and strangest Wimbledon I've ever seen, with a lot of upsets, serve and volleyers struggling, and 2 baseliners in the final (including a Wimbledon debutant), but it seemed to stabalise in the years after that.

Yes, I agree it's still fast, but it clearly has firmer and higher bounces now than before. In September 2001, Wimbledon changed its grass-court surfaces from 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue, to 100% Rye. 2002 saw the slowest and strangest Wimbledon I've ever seen, with a lot of upsets, serve and volleyers struggling, and 2 baseliners in the final (including a Wimbledon debutant), but it seemed to stabalise in the years after that.

Click to expand...

Yeah that was really strange final between Hewitt and Nalbandian but only year later Scud reached final so maybe they speed surface a little...

Yes, I agree it's still fast, but it clearly has firmer and higher bounces now than before. In September 2001, Wimbledon changed its grass-court surfaces from 70% Rye and 30% Creeping Red Fescue, to 100% Rye. 2002 saw the slowest and strangest Wimbledon I've ever seen, with a lot of upsets, serve and volleyers struggling, and 2 baseliners in the final (including a Wimbledon debutant), but it seemed to stabalise in the years after that.

Click to expand...

This year, maybe they treated the grass differently because of the Olympics, Wimbledon was as fast as it's ever been, and when they closed the roof it was ridiculous.

Can someone tell me, if Roger and many tennis fans don't like slow surface, then why did they slowed down all surfaces?

Click to expand...

As the promoters have stated, so the fans "Get to see longer rallies".

Forgive my logic, but if Fed plays best on faster courts, and the courts have year by year have been slown, how can anyone not say that Fed, who even his critics agree is great, would not be "Greater", which they base on wins?

Let's keep it simple; If we said Nadal vs Fed on Clay who would you bet on and why?

If we bet indoor court on the older, faster surfaces, who would you bet on, Nadal vs Fed?

This is simple, I hope it doesn't devolve into this and that. With faster surfaces Fed would have won many more GS's, despite his age, so for the sake of promotion Tennis has devolved, or evolved depending on what style you like, but to change mid stream, to allow someone like Murray to be on the same page as Fed is very wrong.

I don't think Federer benefits all that much relatively speaking from faster courts at this point in his career. He struggles enough with his recovery as it is...just imagine the balls really going flying past him.

That said, he'd still find a way to adapt. But it's not like he'd all of a sudden rise above all competitors. Murray and Djokovic are still plenty dangerous on fast surfaces, and there's always the danger of a big server getting hot and overwhelming Federer's weak return game.

I don't think Federer benefits all that much relatively speaking from faster courts at this point in his career. He struggles enough with his recovery as it is...just imagine the balls really going flying past him.

That said, he'd still find a way to adapt. But it's not like he'd all of a sudden rise above all competitors. Murray and Djokovic are still plenty dangerous on fast surfaces, and there's always the danger of a big server getting hot and overwhelming Federer's weak return game.

Click to expand...

Disagree, cincinatti says hi , federer is more of a aggressive player so that explains it all.

Watch the 1994 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Ivanisevic. It was a servefest for 2 sets, followed by a tanking by Goran in the third set as he ate a bagel. I had high hopes for a Goran victory after his brilliant semi final win over Becker, yet the final was a complete dud, showing the most dull side of 1990s grass-court tennis. The clay-court scene was full of epic rallies at the time, yet grass was getting more and more dominated by 1-3 shot rallies throughout an increasing number of matches. Now, grass-court tennis back then could be entertaining if there was many volleys and net play, but even that was being made more and more harder to do in the 1990s. At Wimbledon back then, I remember being in awe of serving, especially Goran's first serves, Sampras' clutch second serves, and Krajicek's draw dropping displays of serving precision in 1996. I even remember John Lloyd calling for grass-courts to be abolished for good due to the increasing dominance of powerful serves.

Clay-court tennis was about epic rallies, and getting engrossed in the battle. I found this to be by far the most entertaining section of the tennis tour, and it would go on for most of the year being shown on those old ATP highlights shows.

The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different. Brisbane was high bouncing for a grass-court due to the Queensland heat, Wimbledon was low bouncing but at least it bounced okay, whereas Forest Hills was a bog of a court that barely bounced at all.

Click to expand...

Fed has won Wimbledon on both fast and slow grass, and if it weren't for nads, he would have won many more FO's, showing his consistent diversity, so surely you're not suggesting that just since there were "considerably different" speeds of grass, he couldn't of accomplished what Laver did several times over, if todays slams were 75% grass.

Fed has won Wimbledon on both fast and slow grass, and if it weren't for nads, he would have won many more FO's, showing his consistent diversity, so surely you're not suggesting that just since there were "considerably different" speeds of grass, he couldn't of accomplished what Laver did several times over, if todays slams were 75% grass.

Click to expand...

Federer has won all 7 of his Wimbledon titles on the 100% Rye grass. The last Wimbledon tournament on the old 70% Rye grass was when Goran Ivanisevic won the title in 2001, which was also the year when Federer beat Sampras in the Round of 16. And what Laver did in 1969 is one of the greatest achievements in the history of tennis, so don't go thinking it was easy, because it wasn't. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all different.

Federer has won all 7 of his Wimbledon titles on the 100% Rye grass. The last Wimbledon tournament on the old 70% Rye grass was when Goran Ivanisevic won the title in 2001, which was also the year when Federer beat Sampras in the Round of 16. And what Laver did in 1969 is one of the greatest achievements in the history of tennis, so don't go thinking it was easy, because it wasn't. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all different.

Click to expand...

I agree, they were but still it was much easier to do the CYGS than it is now. Im not discrediting Laver but rather saying, due the competition getting tougher and 3 of the 4 surfaces not being similar its harder.

I agree, they were but still it was much easier to do the CYGS than it is now. Im not discrediting Laver but rather saying, due the competition getting tougher and 3 of the 4 surfaces not being similar its harder.

Click to expand...

Is the competition easier now? There's only the top 4 who've won nearly every major for years in 128 man fields. 1969 had a lot of potential major winners, like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Gimeno, Okker, Ashe etc.

Is the competition easier now? There's only the top 4 who've won nearly every major for years in 128 man fields. 1969 had a lot of potential major winners, like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Gimeno, Okker, Ashe etc.

Click to expand...

Mustard, tougher competition only speaks to the relative levels of the players, not the absolute level. You can't punish people for being great.

As an example, the local 4.0 league is very competitive, but they are still going to get crushed by the D1 players. :lol: In that sense, even if there was more disparity at the college level, I would hardly say they have an easier time winning than the 4.0 players, as they have to be much better as a player absolutely to win.

Federer has won all 7 of his Wimbledon titles on the 100% Rye grass. The last Wimbledon tournament on the old 70% Rye grass was when Goran Ivanisevic won the title in 2001, which was also the year when Federer beat Sampras in the Round of 16. And what Laver did in 1969 is one of the greatest achievements in the history of tennis, so don't go thinking it was easy, because it wasn't. The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all different.

Click to expand...

Nobody said it would be easy, Fed may have made winning 17 slams look easy, but it wasn't, still Fed certainly has proven his diversity and ability to win on grass and without question could have done what Laver did if 3 of 4 were on grass now.

Is the competition easier now? There's only the top 4 who've won nearly every major for years in 128 man fields. 1969 had a lot of potential major winners, like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Gimeno, Okker, Ashe etc.

Click to expand...

Please the field is MUCH deeper now than back then, even if the top is making the field look weak.

Is the competition easier now? There's only the top 4 who've won nearly every major for years in 128 man fields. 1969 had a lot of potential major winners, like Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Gimeno, Okker, Ashe etc.

Click to expand...

Many players have past their prime by the time the amateur merge with the pro.

Didn't they start converting the grass at wimbledon back in 2001? Wasn't Henman the one complaining how much slower the surface was that year? Or was it 2002?

Looking back.. Wimbledon in 2001 began to look slower compared to the year before for instance

Click to expand...

2002 was when Henman complained about the slowness of the surface, and that was the year of all the upsets, and 2 baseliners in the final. The change to the grass was in September 2001. As for 2001 Wimbledon, that was one of my favourite tournaments, and I can't say I noticed any difference at all in the surface conditions compared to 2000 Wimbledon.

2002 was when Henman complained about the slowness of the surface, and that was the year of all the upsets, and 2 baseliners in the final. The change to the grass was in September 2001. As for 2001 Wimbledon, that was one of my favourite tournaments, and I can't say I noticed any difference at all in the surface conditions compared to 2000 Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

90's Clay trying to squeeze in an excuse for fed beating sampras :twisted:

Didn't they start converting the grass at wimbledon back in 2001? Wasn't Henman the one complaining how much slower the surface was that year? Or was it 2002?

Looking back.. Wimbledon in 2001 began to look slower compared to the year before for instance

Click to expand...

That was in 2002, GS . In 2001 Tiger Tim reached SF and probably would have reached the final (beaten Goran) if it wasn't for the rain delay.

Wimbledon 2001 didn't look all that slow to me, 2002 was when I first noticed baseliners doing much better, in 2001 3 of the 4 SF were serve and volleyers, 4th was Agassi who as we know won Wimbledon on ultra fast grass.

WRONG.. That thread that bats provided, prove to the contrary. They began altering the grass before 2002.

The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass

The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts

Sorry I will go with FACTS from the wimbledon website over Biased Federphiliac opinions

WRONG.. That thread that bats provided, prove to the contrary. They began altering the grass before 2002.

The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass

The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts

Sorry I will go with FACTS from the wimbledon website over Biased Federphiliac opinions

Click to expand...

I wonder if Fed swapped his gut crosses for poly crosses just before the Sampras-Fed match just to be a troll.

WRONG.. That thread that bats provided, prove to the contrary. They began altering the grass before 2002.

The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass

The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts

Sorry I will go with FACTS from the wimbledon website over Biased Federphiliac opinions

Click to expand...

I meant the Henman complaining happened in 2002 (forgot to bold it).

I still remain by what I said though, 2002 was the first time I noticed baseliners having the edge at Wimbledon and being able to freely play their game.

At the beginning of the 90s many people were already saying that Wimbledon was looking slower than in the 80s.

With this I am not saying that they did not alter things there, but that they've been trying several different things throughout the years to make Wimbledon more "playable" from the baseline.

In 1993 it looked slower than usual, but it probably was because of the weather (very sunny that year).

After the Ivanisevic-Sampras 1994 final, they changed balls and with that made 1995 Wimbledon "slower" than previous editions.

But one thing I notice is that the bounce was truer and higher year after year (I don't know how exactly did they do it).

I saw the 2000 Wimbledon final recently, and in the few baseline exchanges between Rafter and Sampras you could see the ball bouncing quite high and with a truer bounce (than in the 80s for sure).

In 2001 I got the feeling that it was more to the point.

In 2002 it got to a point where it looked like an aberration, it looked slower than most other courts out there (hard or whatever) and enough was enough, and Henman and Rusedski complained loudly.

Go watch Wimbledon 1985 final (for example) and you can see it looked way faster than any 1990s Wimbledon and especially, the bounces were terrible back then (in the 80s and 70s, though still better than the US OPEN when it was played on grass).

Berdych from 2011 says, "hi," as does Andy Murray from 2006 and Dominik Hrbaty from 2004.

Click to expand...

Ehm, Fed playing well on fast HC in Cinci doesn't mean he's unbeatable there, I mean I could name a number of "bad" losses Sampras for example had on indoor carpet, doesn't mean he wasn't a monster on the surface.

Fed has 5 Cincy titles, can you name a player who has more? Not to mention that most of his early losses there coincided with him winning Canada.

I also question the logic of using 2011 Fed for proving a point, does Sampras losing in 4th round in Wimbledon at the same age proves he isn't great on grass? What if Nadal doesn't win 2016 FO?

Not that I disagree with your point completely, I don't think Fed prefers ultra fast surfaces (he was for the elimination of carpet in 2007 IIRC) but he definitely prefers faster conditions compared to Nadal and Novak.

WRONG.. That thread that bats provided, prove to the contrary. They began altering the grass before 2002.

The courts are sown with 100% Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001) to improve durability and strengthen the sward so that it can better withstand the increasing wear of the modern game.
Independent expert research from The Sports Turf Research Institute in Yorkshire, UK, proved that changing the grass seed mix to 100% Perennial Ryegrass (previously 70% Rye/30% Creeping Red Fescue) would be the best way forward to combat wear and enhance court presentation and performance without affecting the perceived speed of the court.
The Grass

The grass plant itself has to survive in this dry soil. Expert research has again shown that a cut height of 8mm is the optimum for present day play and survival.
The height of cut has been at 8mm since 1995.
Speed of Courts

Sorry I will go with FACTS from the wimbledon website over Biased Federphiliac opinions

Click to expand...

Since 2001 does not mean the 2001 Wimbledon tournament. It was September 2001.

Dont bother 90's clay is just desperately trying to find an excuse for feds win over sampras

Click to expand...

I don't know why. Even though it was a big shock considering his excellent Wimbledon record, Sampras hadn't been playing well at the time, anyway. I think it's obvious that Federer has a much bigger appetite for tennis today than what Sampras had in 2001.